Answers to Correspondents. (1910)

From the December 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Barber.”—(Wigan.) 1. In Adam Smith’s day 3 per cent. was the usual rate of profit for sound security. To-day L.C.C. stock, second only to Consols, are issued at 3 ½ per cent. In many cases as large rates as ever are made to-day. The Cold Storage Co. paid over 100 per cent., some of the electric power companies have made similar profits, while some of the catering firms pay dividends of 30 to 40 per cent year after year.

The amount of profit apart from the rate, has of course increased enormously with the increased productiveness of labour.

2. Surplus value is the portion of wealth remaining after paying wages, cost of raw material and of machinery used up in the given time. But this as a rule undergoes further deduction for rent for the land, interest, and rates and taxes. The portion of the surplus value that remains is the capitalist’s Profit. Profit, therefore, is only a part of surplus value.

3. What you pay for your tobacco and sugar is their market prices, and taxes are the smallest factor in fixing these prices. The workers only receive sufficient to keep them in working condition, hence have no margin wherewith to pay taxes. See ” S.S.” for October 1904 and June 1905 where the matter is fully dealt with.

4. If you will send particulars of numbers joining we shall be pleased to help you.

5. Yes, old age pensions etc, do come out of surplus value, as shown by answer to question 3.

************************************************************

E.C.R. asks “How do the S.P.G.B. propose to overthrow the present system of society and establish Socialism on Democratic lines and legislative means without Man and Woman Suffrage?”

The Socialist Party is not opposed to Adult Suffrage, but maintain that the working class have quite sufficient votes at their disposal to effect the revolutionary purpose when the class are sufficiently class conscious to make the time opportune. It is a question of education, not of extensions of the franchise ; and since the line of social cleavage is drawn through classes and not through sexes, there is nothing undemocratic in proposing to proceed even with our present limited male suffrage.

************************************************************

E. Garvey asks how non-producing workers (instancing insurance collectors) can be exploited.

If 5 hours social labour produces a day’s energy, and the worker is compelled to render ten hours labour for the day’s necessaries which have taken only 5 hours to produce, then, no matter what the result of his labour (and the capitalist will see that it has some tangible result), he is exploited. Apart from this, however, even the so-called non-producing workers are necessary to the operations of the capitalist class, and Friend Garvey must not forget that the workers are exploited as a class since as a class they are deprived of the means of living except through wage slavery.

Replies to other correspondents held over.

Books received. (1910)

From the December 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The Inner Mission," J. B. Paton, D. D. (J. Clarke & Co,. Fleet-st. 1s. 6d.)

"The Basis of Christian Socialism," H. O. Thompson. (Henderson, Charing Cross-rd, London. 3d)

Blogger's Note:

Directly underneath this notice of books received on religion and socialism was the following party notice:

Have you read “Socialism and Religion,” the latest S.P.G.B. pamphlet ? It will interest and enlighten you, whatever be your outlook on the religious question. It is an important addition to working-class literature.

Walthamstow. (1910)

From the December 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Walthamstow electorate had two capitalist candidates to choose from. Of course, it was left to the S.P.G.B. to point out this aspect of the situation. During the week preceding the election the Party members held meetings practically every evening, all of which were very largely attended and attentively followed. A leaflet, brief but to the point, was distributed throughout the division, pointing out that Liberal and Tory were equally the enemies of the working class, and advising the latter to abstain from voting, and to write “Socialism” across their ballot papers.

This caused consternation in the enemy’s camp, particularly among the psuedo-Socialists. The Executive Council of the Social-Democratic Party published a manifesto (passed by the local branch by a majority of about four after two or three special meetings had been held) calling upon the working class to vote Tory. “Treachery and lying” said these fine judges of treachery and lying, “are even worse than arrogance and brutality.” Even so, but in their case the deeper dye of the first named obnoxious qualities does not cover up the persistent stain of arrogance and brutality. Said the manifesto further: “Fellow Workers, both the capitalist factions are your enemies. . . . Vote, therefore, against Simon.” The logic of the “therefore” is, of course, irresistible, and doubtless it constrained multitudes to vote for Johnson, one of “the Tories who, during their 17 years tenure of power proved themselves quite as indifferent to the welfare of the people at home … as Liberals and Radicals.” (Justice. 29.l0.10.)

One thing, at least, the S.D.P. succeeded in doing during the election, that is, in showing again what an anti-working-class party they are.

Their decision to vote Tory was probably the result of the discussion in Justice a few months back on what they should do with their votes.

The I.L.P. also issued a manifesto urging the workers to vote against the Liberal on the ground that he refused to give a definite promise that he and the Liberal party would work for the reversal of the Osborne judgment. This was distinctly funny, for, as the Tory papers pointed out at the time, Mr. Johnson, the Tory candidate, had stated very clearly that he upheld the Osborne judgment. That a large number of the workers saw through the I.L.P. trickery is certain, particularly in view of the fact that only ten months previously the same party were shouting themselves hoarse advising the electors to vote for Simon !

However, if figures count for anything, the combined efforts of the I.L.P. and S.D.P. had little other result than to expose their own weakness, for the Liberal increased his majority by 571 votes, while the total poll was 2,677 less than at the General Election.

J. T. B.

SPGB Burnley Branch. (1910)

Party News from the December 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For December. (London District.) (1910)

Party News from the December 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

 

 

Blogger's Note:

Once again, I don't have enough room in the label section to include all the listed speakers, so some brief information on a few of the speakers missing from the sidebar is posted below. You can also check out these older posts which covers the same ground:

• F. Dawkins was a member of the Romford Branch of the SPGB, joining in August 1905. His wiki page goes into extensive detail on his background and on his political journey from Methodism (and the ILP) to Marxism (and the SPGB). Later in life he was a parliamentary candidate for the Labour Party in the Hampstead constituency at the 1929 General Election.
• J. Kelly was a member of the Tottenham branch of the SPGB. There were two 'J. Kellys' in the Tottenham Branch of the SPGB (father and son?), both joining the Party in late August 1909.
• F. Leigh was Fred Leigh. He was a founder member of the SPGB. His membership lapsed from the Paddington Branch of the SPGB in January 1914.
• R. Fox was R. M. Fox. He joined the SPGB in Tottenham in September 1906. Better known after he left the SPGB, his 1937 autobiography, Smoky Crusade, sticks the boot into his old SPGB comrades. He should the offending excerpts from his book on the blog some time.
• G. Holmes was probably Johnny Holmes, who joined the Earlsfield Branch of the Party in August 1909, and who subsequently rejoined the SPGB (Tooting Branch) in April 1921.
• R. Kenny was Robert Kenny. Though not a founder member of the SPGB, he joined the Edmonton Branch of the Party on the 26th June 1904. That was two weeks to the day after the SPGB  was founded. His membership lapsed in late August 1914, but he rejoined Edmonton Branch in October 1916. He resigned his party membership in December 1931 on the grounds that he felt "he was too old to be active".
• J. Kemble was possibly John Kemble. He joined Earlsfield Branch of the SPGB in November 1907. There's no details of when he left - or why - but a John Kemble joined the Tooting Branch of the SPGB in January 1918, lapsing his membership in July 1923.
• H. Cooper was H.J. Cooper. He joined Earlsfield Branch of the SPGB in September 1908, and his membership was lapsed in December 1915.
• A. Jacobs was Alf Jacobs. There is more detailed background on him in this feature which appeared in the September 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard.